Global Warming

djpbarry · 11-12-2008 03:58PM

robtri wrote: »

my point is that this is not an obivious trend, the time frame you are looking at is too short to see if this a trend in terms of global climate change...

So how long do we have to wait until you deem the trend noteworthy? I would have thought several decades is a sufficiently long time period from which to extract a trend.

robtri wrote: »

I am not saying the climate isn't changing it is, it always is, it will never stay the same but to get a proper picture we need more data to see what is happening???

You’re right in saying we need more data – you can never have too much data. But, we already have a hell of a lot of data. How much data do we need before we begin to draw conclusions?

robtri wrote: »

Reading another post by yourself, you work in a lab for experiments and research into drugs to help people…

No, I don’t develop drugs.

robtri wrote: »

…when you are evaluating how the drugs works you don't just take one days worth of data do you??? as this wouldn't be a true reflection of whats going on... you take as long as possible to see the ups and down…

The length of a clinical trial is generally determined by the length of time necessary to collect a sufficient amount of data about the drug and it’s effects. The length of time necessary to achieve this will vary depending on the nature of the drug in question.

robtri wrote: »

…30 years in the earths life cycle is just too short to get the true picture..

I don’t understand this logic. The average temperature of the globe is, for some reason, increasing. There has to be an explanation for this. Are you saying that, because the earth is really, really old, no such explanation can be found? Because mankind seems to have done a pretty good job of explaining various other phenomena involving our planet, such as the orbits of the planets, for example.

baldieman · 11-12-2008 06:12PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t understand this logic. The average temperature of the globe is, for some reason, increasing. There has to be an explanation for this. Are you saying that, because the earth is really, really old, no such explanation can be found? Because mankind seems to have done a pretty good job of explaining various other phenomena involving our planet, such as the orbits of the planets, for example.

There is an explanation for this temp. increase.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538

piraka · 11-12-2008 06:50PM

It looks like there are spanners in the olde global warming theory.

Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

Rethinking Observed Warming

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/

Beating a Dead Frog

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/12/beating-a-dead-frog/

robtri · 12-12-2008 08:49AM

djpbarry wrote: »

So how long do we have to wait until you deem the trend noteworthy? I would have thought several decades is a sufficiently long time period from which to extract a trend.
You’re right in saying we need more data – you can never have too much data. But, we already have a hell of a lot of data. How much data do we need before we begin to draw conclusions?
No, I don’t develop drugs.
The length of a clinical trial is generally determined by the length of time necessary to collect a sufficient amount of data about the drug and it’s effects. The length of time necessary to achieve this will vary depending on the nature of the drug in question.
I don’t understand this logic. The average temperature of the globe is, for some reason, increasing. There has to be an explanation for this. Are you saying that, because the earth is really, really old, no such explanation can be found? Because mankind seems to have done a pretty good job of explaining various other phenomena involving our planet, such as the orbits of the planets, for example.

Dude, my apologies for mis-reading into your other post and assuming you workind in drug/med research.

No I am not saying an explanation cannot be found, stop trying to have an argument. I am saying for the thrid time, 30 years is too short.... build a bridge and get over it...
see the link posted above by piraka, now thats a reasonable time frame to look at 11,400 years.....

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 10:47AM

baldieman wrote: »

There is an explanation for this temp. increase.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538

The article in Nature on which that web-page is based is here. The very first line of the abstract reads:

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo.

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 10:48AM

robtri wrote: »

I am saying for the thrid time, 30 years is too short.... build a bridge and get over it...
see the link posted above by piraka, now thats a reasonable time frame to look at 11,400 years.....

And how accurate do you think that data is relative to direct temperature measurements? Not very?

Sam Kade · 12-12-2008 11:39AM

djpbarry wrote: »

And how accurate do you think that data is relative to direct temperature measurements? Not very?

Can you find any flaws in Pirakas links?

fits · 12-12-2008 12:25PM

Q: How many climate change sceptics does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. It's too early to say if the lightbulb needs changing.

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 01:10PM

piraka wrote: »

Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools

The key word there is "oscillation".

piraka wrote: »

Rethinking Observed Warming

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/

The paper on which this webpage is based is here. The last line of the abstract reads:

"The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences."

piraka wrote: »

Beating a Dead Frog

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/12/beating-a-dead-frog/

This article has nothing to do with the causes of climate change, but anyway, the original paper is here. Last line of abstract:

"Although climate change is likely to play an important role in worldwide amphibian declines, more convincing evidence is needed of a causal link."

piraka · 12-12-2008 02:51PM

I'm not sure what you were trying to tell us with that graph.

As a matter of interest, I've (unscientifically) eyeballed a trend line onto that graph - see the attached. I think the result is informative

Really? None at all? Seems to me there's a fairly obvious underlying trend.

Caaarrrreeefuuuul in what you see.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/wunschaha2007.pdf

Extremes, Patterns, and Other Structures in Oceanographic and Climate Records
C. Wunsch
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Ma 02140

Abstract. The human eye and brain are powerful pattern detection instruments.
Coupled with the clear human need to perceive the world as deterministic and understandable, and the often counter-intuitive results of probability theory, it is easy to go astray in making inferences. In particular, many examples exist where attention was called to apparent extreme behavior, whether in time or space series, or in the appearance of unusual patterns, that are just happenstance. Used carefully, and with a residual open-mindedness, it is possible to employ some simple statistical tests to avoid the outcomes of inferring unusual behavior where none is present, nor in rejecting a major finding as being insignificant.

robtri · 12-12-2008 02:53PM

djpbarry wrote: »

The article in Nature on which that web-page is based is here. The very first line of the abstract reads:

Your quote you use here, just backs up what i have been saying, your quote states information is available for the last 400 years, and they don't think thats long enough to determine its effects on our climate, so how can 30 years worth be good enough.

I am not saying that our climate isn't changing or that we aren't responsible for it changing, but as to how much difference we are actually making to the climate as a whole is debateable as we do not know the trends the earths climate goes through naturally...

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 03:22PM

robtri wrote: »

Your quote you use here, just backs up what i have been saying, your quote states information is available for the last 400 years, and they don't think thats long enough to determine its effects on our climate, so how can 30 years worth be good enough.

What is this "30 years" figure you keep spouting?

12-12-2008 03:33PM

Ive always been a bit sceptical regarding the whole climate change argument. There are valid points from both sides but imo the earth is just going through a normal phase as it has been for millions of years.

piraka · 12-12-2008 03:44PM

The key word there is "oscillation".

.................which is implicated in major climate change. The 1975/76 abrupt climate shift to a warming phase for example and don't forget the AMO which has just come out of warming phase and the anomalous NAO during 80/90;s which caused substantial warming over Europe. Couple all that with the strongest Elnino on record in 1998.

The paper on which this webpage is based is here. The last line of the abstract reads:

"The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences."]

Nice to see natural being used again. I understood from the IPCC that the observed warming over the past couple of decades was entirely due to anthropogenic effects. Silly me.

robtri · 12-12-2008 04:12PM

djpbarry wrote: »

What is this "30 years" figure you keep spouting?

ehhh the graph on post 48.... the one i disagreed with showing a trend and you jumped on my response........

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 04:36PM

piraka wrote: »

I understood from the IPCC that the observed warming over the past couple of decades was entirely due to anthropogenic effects.

You understood wrong.

djpbarry · 12-12-2008 04:39PM

robtri wrote: »

ehhh the graph on post 48.... the one i disagreed with showing a trend and you jumped on my response........

Ok, well there are temperature records going back as far as 1850 that are used in the Hadley data sets. Granted, those measurements are not going to be as accurate as those made today, but they exist nonetheless.

So how long do we have to wait before you'll be satisfied that enough data exists before a reasonable conclusion can be drawn?

ART6 · 12-12-2008 06:04PM

If human activity is indeed causing the planet to heat up, then we must all do our bit to solve the problem, mustn't we? In Ireland we must seek ways (normally through taxation -- surprise surprise) to minimise emissions of CO2 etc. Meanwhile the research reported in http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/china-energy-1006.html states that China is building the equivalent of four 500 MW coal fired power stations a week, and that although they are designed to a high standard, to save costs they burn low grade coal and turn off the emissions abatement equipment because it's too expensive to operate. Make our efforts look a little puny methinks.

But still, we must give full dues to our ministers for spending our money buying carbon offsets every time they fly anywhere. I just wonder how many flights are necessary to offset one Chinese 500 MW power station?

baldieman · 13-12-2008 12:08AM

djpbarry wrote: »

The article in Nature on which that web-page is based is here. The very first line of the abstract reads:

I suppose what it really comes down to is which do you really prefer to believe. Well, i prefer to believe that we are not responsible for GW.
Because if we are, were not going to be able to fix it anyway, the best we could hope for is to slow down the exhalations.
If I'm wrong, its not going to change much, but if you're wrong and carbon taxes come into effect, it'll only put more pressure on our economic doom and gloom.
Having said that, I'm all in favour of renewable energy as oil wont last forever and if we put our minds to it, we could become an energy exporter.
Getting back to solar activity, if it remains quiet for another year or so, we may get a clearer picture of the true nature of climate change.

Sam Kade · 13-12-2008 12:38AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, well there are temperature records going back as far as 1850 that are used in the Hadley data sets. Granted, those measurements are not going to be as accurate as those made today, but they exist nonetheless.

So how long do we have to wait before you'll be satisfied that enough data exists before a reasonable conclusion can be drawn?

Satellite temperature measurements have been obtained from the troposphere since 1978. By comparison, the usable balloon (radiosonde) record begins in 1958.

Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

Sam Kade · 13-12-2008 04:28PM

It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist — or have yet to be found.
The need for enemies seem to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to designate as scapegoat religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” – Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).

http://www.earthemperor.com/2008/10/25/the-first-global-revolution-by-alexander-king-and-bertrand-schneider/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/Alexander-King-Bertrand-Schneider-The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition

djpbarry · 15-12-2008 11:47AM

Sam Kade wrote: »

Satellite temperature measurements have been obtained from the troposphere since 1978. By comparison, the usable balloon (radiosonde) record begins in 1958.

Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

That's some nice copy and pasting. Is there a point in there somewhere?

djpbarry · 15-12-2008 11:49AM

baldieman wrote: »

I suppose what it really comes down to is which do you really prefer to believe.

I would say it comes down to weight of evidence.

baldieman wrote: »

Getting back to solar activity, if it remains quiet for another year or so, we may get a clearer picture of the true nature of climate change.

How so?

Nigsy · 15-12-2008 12:35PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say it comes down to weight of evidence.

Based on this statement you would not have much of a case, would you?

djpbarry · 15-12-2008 12:51PM

Nigsy wrote: »

Based on this statement you would not have much of a case, would you?

Oh no, of course not. In fact, I don't think there has been a single paper published in the area. Ever.

Nigsy · 15-12-2008 01:15PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh no, of course not. In fact, I don't think there has been a single paper published in the area. Ever.

Worried about losing that handy research job?

Everyone knows scientists are a joke, they would do anything, promote any issue so long as they get a decent grant. Sure beats stacking in Dunnes.

oscarBravo · 15-12-2008 01:15PM

piraka wrote: »

Caaarrrreeefuuuul in what you see.

...

The human eye and brain are powerful pattern detection instruments.
Coupled with the clear human need to perceive the world as deterministic and understandable, and the often counter-intuitive results of probability theory, it is easy to go astray in making inferences. In particular, many examples exist where attention was called to apparent extreme behavior, whether in time or space series, or in the appearance of unusual patterns, that are just happenstance. Used carefully, and with a residual open-mindedness, it is possible to employ some simple statistical tests to avoid the outcomes of inferring unusual behavior where none is present, nor in rejecting a major finding as being insignificant.

That's a valid point, so I found the source of the data used to generate the graph, and re-graphed it with a linear regression overlaid:

I think the result is clear.

oscarBravo · 15-12-2008 01:24PM

Nigsy wrote: »

Worried about losing that handy research job?

Everyone knows scientists are a joke, they would do anything, promote any issue so long as they get a decent grant. Sure beats stacking in Dunnes.

Bugger off, Casey.

fishfoodie · 15-12-2008 02:22PM

Hmmmm, so much for 'consensus'

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

robtri · 15-12-2008 02:43PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a valid point, so I found the source of the data used to generate the graph, and re-graphed it with a linear regression overlaid:

I think the result is clear.

So we have a graph plotted for the last 30 years saying the global climate is heating up.... I don't think anybody will deny that one.... but it doesn't prove that mankind is responsible or if this is a normal occurance in the earths global climate,
here's a link that put forward a theroy on the sun being responsible and that the Sun is responsible for 0.5 of the 0.6 increase in global climate...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php

Global Warming

Comments